Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2024, Part I
- Thread starter cats_09
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 26, 2017
- 27,122
- 44,722
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Complete waste of everyone’s time
cats_09
Otters United
- Jun 21, 2011
- 57,385
- 116,338
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #4,256
As per another David Zita tweet:
Reasons:
We consider this to be a clear case of rough conduct. Higgins used a poor and dangerous technique tackling Aliir to ground.
He grabbed hold of Aliir’s left arm and forcefully rotated him to ground. Higgins applied excessive force through a combination of dragging Aliir down by his left arm, while also using his bodyweight and right arm to help bring a bigger player to ground.
Importantly, at no stage did Higgins release Aliir’s left arm as he was coming to ground so that Aliir had control of his arm and could try to use it to protect himself.
Higgins had hold Aliir’s arm in such a way that Aliir had no or little ability to use it to try to protect himself.
A player exercising reasonable care would have released control of Aliir’s left arm to give him some opportunity to try to protect himself.
We agree that Aliir’s movement in attempting to kick the ball contributed to his momentum in coming to ground. We also have regard to the evidence of Dr. Bayne.
However, Higgins’ tackle was unreasonable for all the reasons we've stated, irrespective of Aliir’s movement in attempting to kick the ball.
Higgins dragged him down by his left arm with excessive force and even when Aliir was hurtling to the ground after trying to kick the ball, Higgins did not release his left arm.
This tackle was unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore constituted rough conduct.
Higgins did not challenge the grading of the impact as severe or the contact as high, and therefore is unnecessary to address those matters. That was sensible in circumstances where Aliir’s head hit the ground hard, he left the ground, did not return, suffered a concussion and will miss at least one further match.
We do not consider there to be any merit in the alternative submission that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a sanction of three matches.
We consider a three-match sanction to be proportionate in all the circumstances.
The tackle was unreasonable and dangerous irrespective of Aliir’s actions.
Reasons:
We consider this to be a clear case of rough conduct. Higgins used a poor and dangerous technique tackling Aliir to ground.
He grabbed hold of Aliir’s left arm and forcefully rotated him to ground. Higgins applied excessive force through a combination of dragging Aliir down by his left arm, while also using his bodyweight and right arm to help bring a bigger player to ground.
Importantly, at no stage did Higgins release Aliir’s left arm as he was coming to ground so that Aliir had control of his arm and could try to use it to protect himself.
Higgins had hold Aliir’s arm in such a way that Aliir had no or little ability to use it to try to protect himself.
A player exercising reasonable care would have released control of Aliir’s left arm to give him some opportunity to try to protect himself.
We agree that Aliir’s movement in attempting to kick the ball contributed to his momentum in coming to ground. We also have regard to the evidence of Dr. Bayne.
However, Higgins’ tackle was unreasonable for all the reasons we've stated, irrespective of Aliir’s movement in attempting to kick the ball.
Higgins dragged him down by his left arm with excessive force and even when Aliir was hurtling to the ground after trying to kick the ball, Higgins did not release his left arm.
This tackle was unreasonable in the circumstances and therefore constituted rough conduct.
Higgins did not challenge the grading of the impact as severe or the contact as high, and therefore is unnecessary to address those matters. That was sensible in circumstances where Aliir’s head hit the ground hard, he left the ground, did not return, suffered a concussion and will miss at least one further match.
We do not consider there to be any merit in the alternative submission that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which make it inappropriate or unreasonable to apply a sanction of three matches.
We consider a three-match sanction to be proportionate in all the circumstances.
The tackle was unreasonable and dangerous irrespective of Aliir’s actions.
FootyLad0
Club Legend
- Jun 3, 2019
- 1,275
- 1,628
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Why didn't Saints bring in multiple people to tell everyone how much of a good bloke he is?
- Nov 7, 2010
- 26,961
- 35,797
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- WADA
Higgins new name Samson 78kg bloke throws 96kg bloke around like a ragdoll.
It’s bollocks- was worth a week off- that’s it.
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 26,596
- 42,931
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Should just make it the cats best 22 with Cameron missing
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 26,596
- 42,931
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Brilliant trolling
- Sep 26, 2017
- 27,122
- 44,722
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Could you please post this on the tigers board …sadly I’m still banned from there
- Mar 11, 2019
- 15,739
- 24,614
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Probably got a more defined role which may have helped him.
Some defenders perform better if you tell them to 1 Defend first and if you can intercept attack etc.
The crows at $2.25 are good value imo.
Won last week. Big showdown. Crows home game. Sloane farewell, their first round pick debuting.
Port missing Alir and Powell pepper, Rozee under injury cloud.
Won last week. Big showdown. Crows home game. Sloane farewell, their first round pick debuting.
Port missing Alir and Powell pepper, Rozee under injury cloud.
Talk on Pendleberrry by Purple moving to North is silly. He is not going anywhere.
It made me look ...he is on 390 games atm.... so if he doesnt get injured ..... he play his 400th game V us in round 18.
They may rest him to and then play v Hawks, Tigers or Carlton in Round22.
Id imagine a Blues Pies game , Rd22 and Penddles playing 400 ... would be close to the biggest H&A crowd for a long time
... and it also make me wonder.... what time would it be scheduled. It seems very quickly the idea of 4.35 on Sat has become the new "in" time.
I wonder if the afl had its time over ... would we be playing Melb at 4.35 rather than 7.30 on Sat.
It made me look ...he is on 390 games atm.... so if he doesnt get injured ..... he play his 400th game V us in round 18.
They may rest him to and then play v Hawks, Tigers or Carlton in Round22.
Id imagine a Blues Pies game , Rd22 and Penddles playing 400 ... would be close to the biggest H&A crowd for a long time
... and it also make me wonder.... what time would it be scheduled. It seems very quickly the idea of 4.35 on Sat has become the new "in" time.
I wonder if the afl had its time over ... would we be playing Melb at 4.35 rather than 7.30 on Sat.
- Sep 19, 2017
- 195
- 308
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Is it just me or was Jordan Lewis giving out some serious Jeffrey Dahmer vibes on 360 last night? 
Attachments
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 26,596
- 42,931
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Brilliant! I love the part about copying the grand final performance.
My favourite though is him being in the seat behind the column at the SCG and just not addressing it.
On FB today from Angus Brayshaw's brother. Apols if already posted, but true and tragic:
Dear AFL,
I normally swear on here and act like an idiot, however there will be no profanity or hyperbole in this letter. These are my honest and bewildered thoughts as a current player and lifetime fan of the greatest game in the world.
The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you’re making it impossible to adjudicate and you’re not far off making it impossible to support.
Over the past 12 months, this is my interpretation of the rules of the game based on what I am hearing and seeing coming directly from the AFL;
Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn’t matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don’t forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn’t count, and it depends on the player, and the team they’re on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we’re seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn’t hard enough to hurt them.
I have grown up all my life surrounded by football. Playing football, watching football, my family has been engrossed in the AFL system for decades and I have absolutely no idea what is going on anymore.
My brother is never going to play football again in his whole life because of a jumping smother that turned into a bump that collided with his head. As much as it killed me to watch that, I can put my feelings for Angus aside and say that down to the nuts and bolts of it, Maynard was trying to smother the ball in a qualifying final so technically it was a football act.
You certainly didn’t care all for the outcome there and Brayden went on to win a premiership. That is precedence. That was as big a defining moment for the tribunal as I can remember, and you went with protecting the sanctity of the game over the protection of the player. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but it is breaking me that you are constantly backflipping on that stance.
Peter Wright and Toby Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference. Jeremy Finlayson got less than Peter Wright for a homophobic slur which once again highlights that nobody at the AFL really knows what’s happening at the tribunal, you just make it up as you see fit.
Matt Crouch has been given a week for picking the ball up the way every single kid playing football is taught to do it. There is goal square footage of Jesse Hogan punching his defender in the face, and he has admitted to swinging with force to try and push his opponent. The AFL’s response “We are not clearly satisfied that was anything more than negligible.” He was swung a fist at a bloke's face and because it didn’t hurt you haven’t given him a week. Punish the action, not the outcome unless the outcome is they’re okay. Ask my little brother Andrew if an intentional swing to the face has the potential to cause harm. Incredible.
We’ve heard enough about Charlie Cameron being let off for being a nice guy but Tom Barrass can’t escape a week for the same thing. The get-out-of-jail-free card only appears once in the deck apparently.
This is my last point and I am going to swear so beep this out if you want. Tom Barrass is staying in Perth and missing one game for a dangerous tackle. I don’t think there was much more he could’ve done differently. Walters played the game out and isn’t concussed but sure, still give Barrass a week if that’s the stance, protect the head at all costs. I can’t physically watch the Melbourne Demons play football anymore because my brother’s brain is going to be f***ed for the rest of his life and you didn’t think that was enough for a week off.
AFL you are the greatest game in the world, but right now you’re a joke. Your systems for protecting the player and maintaining the integrity of the game are broken and desperately need to be fixed. Before they can be fixed you need to actually understand the criteria you want to govern the game by. It needs to be understandable for the public and it needs to be followed. You can’t pick and choose when to dismiss certain things and when to change your views on others. It has to change otherwise this game is going to turn into something unrecognisable and it’s going to happen very quickly.
Yours Sincerely,
Hamish Brayshaw
Dear AFL,
I normally swear on here and act like an idiot, however there will be no profanity or hyperbole in this letter. These are my honest and bewildered thoughts as a current player and lifetime fan of the greatest game in the world.
The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you’re making it impossible to adjudicate and you’re not far off making it impossible to support.
Over the past 12 months, this is my interpretation of the rules of the game based on what I am hearing and seeing coming directly from the AFL;
Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn’t depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn’t matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don’t forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn’t count, and it depends on the player, and the team they’re on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we’re seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn’t hard enough to hurt them.
I have grown up all my life surrounded by football. Playing football, watching football, my family has been engrossed in the AFL system for decades and I have absolutely no idea what is going on anymore.
My brother is never going to play football again in his whole life because of a jumping smother that turned into a bump that collided with his head. As much as it killed me to watch that, I can put my feelings for Angus aside and say that down to the nuts and bolts of it, Maynard was trying to smother the ball in a qualifying final so technically it was a football act.
You certainly didn’t care all for the outcome there and Brayden went on to win a premiership. That is precedence. That was as big a defining moment for the tribunal as I can remember, and you went with protecting the sanctity of the game over the protection of the player. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with that, but it is breaking me that you are constantly backflipping on that stance.
Peter Wright and Toby Green, 4 weeks and 1 week respectively for football acts with not a whole lot of difference. Jeremy Finlayson got less than Peter Wright for a homophobic slur which once again highlights that nobody at the AFL really knows what’s happening at the tribunal, you just make it up as you see fit.
Matt Crouch has been given a week for picking the ball up the way every single kid playing football is taught to do it. There is goal square footage of Jesse Hogan punching his defender in the face, and he has admitted to swinging with force to try and push his opponent. The AFL’s response “We are not clearly satisfied that was anything more than negligible.” He was swung a fist at a bloke's face and because it didn’t hurt you haven’t given him a week. Punish the action, not the outcome unless the outcome is they’re okay. Ask my little brother Andrew if an intentional swing to the face has the potential to cause harm. Incredible.
We’ve heard enough about Charlie Cameron being let off for being a nice guy but Tom Barrass can’t escape a week for the same thing. The get-out-of-jail-free card only appears once in the deck apparently.
This is my last point and I am going to swear so beep this out if you want. Tom Barrass is staying in Perth and missing one game for a dangerous tackle. I don’t think there was much more he could’ve done differently. Walters played the game out and isn’t concussed but sure, still give Barrass a week if that’s the stance, protect the head at all costs. I can’t physically watch the Melbourne Demons play football anymore because my brother’s brain is going to be f***ed for the rest of his life and you didn’t think that was enough for a week off.
AFL you are the greatest game in the world, but right now you’re a joke. Your systems for protecting the player and maintaining the integrity of the game are broken and desperately need to be fixed. Before they can be fixed you need to actually understand the criteria you want to govern the game by. It needs to be understandable for the public and it needs to be followed. You can’t pick and choose when to dismiss certain things and when to change your views on others. It has to change otherwise this game is going to turn into something unrecognisable and it’s going to happen very quickly.
Yours Sincerely,
Hamish Brayshaw
CatToTheFuture
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 18, 2018
- 26,596
- 42,931
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I think the main takeaway here is that the tribunal is independent. They DGAF what the AFL wants.
I think they are lawyered up and just shifting the sands as it goes, and as Hamish says, there is too much inconsistency in the decision, the precedent it based on and the following verdicts.
Sadly Hawk has been on the end of a few of these shifts, notwithstanding he has been an undisciplined dick at times.
But too often his "sins" have been forgiven for other players who follow.
I'd just get rid of the appeals process, replace the MRP with some IR law firm in based Switzerland. They compare the footage to the criteria set at the start of the season. You get what you get when you get it, if you complain you get an extra week.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 27,122
- 44,722
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I still don’t agree with Mayard’s act being an innoncent football mechanics…much Like Greene he used the circumstances to inflict as much damage as possible
But that’s just me
But that’s just me
Similar threads
- Locked
